The pernicious pull of the black hole that is film & TV

@wwaycorrigan

[For an audio/vlog version of this story, click here.]

'Don't bite the hand that feeds you.'

It makes a lot of sense. Damage the relationship with those who give you sustenance, in whatever form, and hardship is likely to ensue.

Cognitive dissonance: Brendan 'Wrong Way' Corrigan gets miked up for a minor TV series role.

Sometimes, however, we may be doing both ourselves and society at large a favour by not only biting that gifting hand but devouring the whole body.

A harming hand

Imagine if, in 1941, Blondi had consumed the hands, head and heart of her loving master. OK, contemplating counterfactual histories opens the door to numerous alternative probabilities but surely a world that rid itself of Adolf Hitler in the early 1940s would be a better place today. Surely.

A world without showbiz, though, would be a culturally poorer place, and a whole lot duller, wouldn't it?

Whatever one's opinion, the film and TV industry has become so entrenched in our daily lives that few can envisage a normal, nay liveable, life without it.

And seeing how this industry has been one of my most reliable forms of income over the last number of years, I more than most shouldn't be nefariously nibbling at its paying palms.

Nonetheless, I've called out its inconsistencies and inequalities before. For example, see, Enticing extras: The siren call of our times and Agents of short-change.

Flights of fancy

This time, I'm focusing on the film world's substantial carbon footprint.

It's something that I'm adding to as I write these lines, having been flown, twice, over 1000 km north of Bogotá to Santa Marta, whence I was chauffeured about 90 km east to the Caribbean coast town of Palomino to play a minor role in a new Spanish production.

Those flights, particularly the mid-filming return to Bogotá for four nights, really got me thinking about the excessive energy needs and waste for which this industry is responsible.

From a mere budgeting perspective — who cares about financial prudence these days, eh? — had the production company given me the cost of that return flight back to Bogotá, I could have used the money more wisely, and reduced my carbon footprint in the process, by staying in one of Palomino's budget hotels/hostels until I was needed on-set again.

I've seen private rooms advertised for 30,000 COP per night. That's decent value in a town that has become quite touristy over the last few years. It was more tranquil and less trodden when I first visited in 2013 (see https://wwcorrigan.blogspot.com/2013/08/palomino-and-cabo-de-la-vela-lighter.html).

For the record, rooms at the beachfront hotel resort where the production company put me up, Hukumeizi, range from about 300,000 to 600,000 COP per night.

'Viewed from a distance, the film and TV industry may appear full of stars. Yet, up close, it's more like a big black hole.'

As a relevant aside considering the theme of this piece, Hukumeizi's claim that some of its rooms are ecological is rather questionable. The bathrooms in said ecological rooms are so lacking in natural light that one has to turn on the artificial lights during the day to see properly. What's more, the hotel's policy appears to be to force guests into buying water from small plastic bottles. How ecologically benign that is!

Coming back to those flights, I was just one of over a dozen such Colombian-based actors — I'm using the label actor lightly for me here — who were flown back to their base mid-filming.

In addition to our transport to and from Santa Marta's airport, another van was used to carry our luggage. Keep those carbon emissions flowing, folks!

This is not to mention all the flights to and from Spain transporting both equipment and personnel.

Hungry stars

Then there's the filming of the series itself. It involved over 300 staff, all of whom had to be fed and watered — 300 ml plastic water bottles being the preference on set — and most, apart from locally sourced extras, had to be housed.

Add in the not-very-natural make-up used to mimic everyday dirt — a lot was needed for a series set in the 1490s, as this is — plus the chemicals used to remove this make-up, and the waste tab becomes considerable.

And one must ask, all this for what? What net benefit does it give to humanity?

OK, for me it has provided a badly needed income and a rather surreal, pleasurable experience. And I imagine that when the series airs, millions will enjoy it.

But surely the energy expended in this production could be put to a more beneficial use for both humanity and the environment in general.

There's also the argument that such high-cost productions give little back to the viewer. They're flashy and slick yet not very fine or stimulating. Easy on the eye but with little educational value. Some, however, view such opinions as arrogant and ignorant. It's a nuanced debate.

Voracious vanity

Whatever one's thoughts on the end product, it cannot be denied that it comes at a huge cost on many levels. A Time magazine article published in March 2024 says that large productions such as Barbie or Oppenheimer can emit up to 3,370 tonnes of CO2 equivalents, enough to power 656 homes for a year. One assumes that's referring to homes in high-income nations.

Advancements in artificial intelligence should help production companies reduce these costs while still delivering visually impressive content. AI can be a positive force, in some areas.

As for the living, breathing thespian talent, there's always live theatre to separate the true actors from the pretenders. There are no second takes — never mind third, fourth or fifth ones — once the curtain's up.

So society at large could do worse than appreciate more so the live stage rather than the big and small screens.

For viewed from a distance, the film and TV industry may appear full of stars. Yet, up close, it's more like a big black hole.

Having been pulled into it, I can see its voracious vanity. Yes, it occasionally feeds me. But at what price?
__________________________________________________________
Listen to The Corrigan Cast podcast here.

Facebook: Wrong Way Corrigan — The Blog & IQuiz "The Bogotá Pub Quiz".

Eur-out

Citizens of Ireland, arise from your slumber. It’s now fully clear, Europe doesn’t want us anymore, as if it ever really did. 

If it wasn’t pretty clear already as to the continent’s feelings towards us, events of the past few weeks have spelt it out in no uncertain terms. 

What the Reich thinks of us & the rest of its 'Empire'.

Remember just last month the Irish electorate – well, those remaining in the country who bothered to vote – gave both the euro currency and EU itself a significant shot in the arm by endorsing the Fiscal Treaty in a referendum. It was a straight forward yes – not one of those nos that means a yes á la the Nice and Lisbon treaties. 

As all our main political parties assured us in the lead up to the vote – bar Sinn Féin and a few other weird leftists – a big thumbs-up would win us brownie points on the ‘mainland’ (that’s Europe we’re referring to here, not Britain, as some Shinners may think). 

Given the boot

But what happens? Well, our first dining at the top table of European soccer since 1988 – where it’s really at – sees us suffer a humbling 3-1 reverse to Croatia. This is a country, bear in mind, that’s not even a fully-fledged European Union member. Come on, they might as well have just given our place at the finals to that most European of countries, Israel. 

That’s followed swiftly by a 4-0 thrashing from a country that has a much worse debt problem than us, Spain. 

'As many an Ulsterman has been trying to tell us for years: We must utilise our orange power.'

Sport often tends to be more blunt and honest than most other walks of life. The message is clear – and don’t be fooled into thinking that it’s just soccer related. ‘We’ve had enough of these Irish alcoholics pretending to be part of Europe; the game is up lads’. Time to exit stage left. 

Who wouldn't like these guys? Europe just doesn't get it, eh?

The rot, however, has been setting in for some time. We should have really jumped ship after the ‘Hand of Henry’ incident in Paris (see: http://bit.ly/NruJT9). Loyalty gets you nowhere; just ask any married couple about that. 

Ignoring the Irish

It’s not all sporting signs, though. Even when we shower them with love, no less than two years in a row, in the shape of Jedward at Eurovision, they give us the proverbial two-fingers. Do you think the United States or even China would flatly reject such wooing? Of course not.

We can go further back if you want. For one, the Romans never wanted us. Yet for centuries we’ve been pledging our allegiance firmly in that direction – a one-way relationship if there ever was one. 

There’s more. How many times did we send SOS calls to our Catholic neighbours in France and Spain when Protestant Britain was laying siege to our land? Too big a number to go through here, that’s for sure.

And what help did we get? A few half-hearted attempts at sending military reinforcements, nothing more. 

Eastern promise?

Contrast this with Dermot MacMurrough’s call for assistance to Strongbow in the 12^th century. It was the start of a long-lasting, ahem, friendship with our neighbours across the Irish Sea. A friend in need and all that.

Some of our strongest assets - red heads & cattle.

Now, in case you thought we’d forgotten, the never-put-a-foot-wrong Germans, our current masters, aren’t without fault either; bombing poor little neutral Ireland’s capital city during World War Two. 

What did we do in return? Send our condolences to the German Embassy in Dublin on the news of the noble Herr Hitler’s death. Talk about setting a precedent for being a soft touch. 

'They may take our freedom but they'll never take our cattle!' 'What's that? They already have?!'

So let’s stop deluding ourselves – trying to be part of something that we’re plainly not. 

We have options. The Yanks would surely accept us – all we’d have to do is go back to living in thatched cottages and replace all those leaving the country with more cattle and sheep, thereby bringing back the traditional Irish traffic jam. 

We could, though, look east instead. That should at least ensure an easier qualifying route to the Fifa World Cup. Should, that is. 

In any case, if things were going awry against Asian opposition, we could always throw on Paul McShane. Our friends from the Orient would then be too busy trying to get a photo of his flowing ginger locks rather than worrying about football. 

As many an Ulsterman has been trying to tell us for years: We must utilise our orange power.

_______________________

For more on the way things currently stand for the Republic of Ireland, check out this very informative video: http://www.rte.ie/sport/player/#!/clip/820/

Back to the future

We can all be wise after the event – most of us, anyway. In an Irish context, we’ve had plenty of politicians and economists claiming that — after the wheels so dramatically and disastrously came off our false little boom — they knew the bust was coming well before it arrived. If so, the majority of them did a very good job of keeping this valuable information to themselves. Publicly making predictions or at least sharing your thoughts on the future direction of events is something many of our modern-day politicians shirk from. 

'So, which part of Poland can we have?' - Molotov, left, with Hitler.

The same, however, cannot be said for the former Soviet Union Foreign Minister Vyacheslav Molotov. Below is a speech he made in Paris on 10 October 1946, on the policy of ‘equal opportunity’ or the ‘open world’ economy that was beginning to take shape in the West. 

Considering how things have panned out in the 60-plus years since he uttered these words, you would have to say he wasn’t that far off the mark on much of what he foresaw here. Of course, depending on where you’re coming from, this ‘equal opportunity’ that Molotov feared is either good or bad. 

Like most things, it’s probably a mixture of both. Right now many of the ‘liberated’ former Soviet states are probably quite happy to be in bed with, so to speak, the USA rather than Russia. There might come a time, though, when that stance will change. Whatever the case may be, you can make up your own mind on what ‘Prophet’ Molotov had to say:

“We know that the United States made a very great effort in this war, in defence of its own interests and of our common aims, for which we are all grateful to that country. But for all that, it cannot be said that the United States is one of those states which suffered grave material damage in the Second World War, which were ruined and weakened in this war. We are glad that this did not happen to our ally, although we ourselves have had to go through trying times, the consequences of which will take us long years to heal.

Now that you know the facts, place side-by-side Romania, enfeebled by the war, or Yugoslavia, ruined by the German and Italian fascists, and the United States of America, whose wealth has grown immensely during the war, and you will clearly see what the implementation of the principle of ‘equal opportunity’ would mean in practice. Imagine, under these circumstances, that in this same Romania or Yugoslavia or in some other war-weakened state, you have this so-called ‘equal opportunity’ for, let us say, American capital – that is, the opportunity for it to penetrate unhindered into Romanian industry or Yugoslav industry and so forth: what, then, will remain of Romania’s national industry, or of Yugoslavia’s national industry?

It is surely not so difficult to understand that if American capital were given a free hand in the small states ruined and enfeebled by the war, as the advocates of the principle of ‘equal opportunity’ desire, American capital would buy up the local industries, appropriate the more attractive Romanian, Yugoslav and all other enterprises and would become the master in these small states. Given such a situation, we would probably live to see the day when in your own country, on switching on the radio, you would be hearing not so much your own language as one American gramophone record after another or some piece or other of British propaganda. 

The time might come when in your own country, on going to the cinema, you would be seeing American films sold for foreign consumption – and not those of better quality, but those manufactured in greater quantity and circulated and imposed abroad by the agents of powerful firms and cinema companies which have grown particularly rich during the war.

'Eh, Minister Molotov, let's give the cinema a miss today.'

Can anyone really fail to see that if, as a result of the application of the principle of so-called ‘equal opportunity’ in small states, unrestricted competition begins between the home products and the products poured out by the factories of the United States or Great Britain, nothing will remain of the sovereignty and independence of these states, especially considering the post-war conditions? Is it not clear that such unrestricted application of the principle of ‘equal opportunity’ in the given conditions would in practice mean the veritable economic enslavement of the small states and their subjugation to the rule and arbitrary will of strong and enriched foreign firms, banks and industrial companies? 

Is it not clear that if such ‘principles of equality’ are applied in international economic life, the smaller states will be governed by the orders, injunctions and instructions of strong foreign trusts and monopolies? Was this what we fought for when we battled the fascist invaders, the Hitlerite and Japanese imperialists?”

Well there you go. A visionary or what, eh?

__________________________

Speech taken from: McCauley, Martin, ‘Seminar Studies in History – The Origins of the Cold War’, PP 119-121, Longman, New York, 1990